The main legal point established in the judgment is that section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to appeals and revision petitions under the Act based on the provisions of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.

JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) 1. This is an application under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay of fifteen days in filing a Civil Revision petition under section 91 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", to which the period of limitation prescribed under section 93 applies. Feeling that there is conflict ot judgments concerning this question, our learned brother, Reghuvir, J. , referred the matter to a Division Bench. That is how this petition has come up before us.

( 2 ) SRI G. Ramakrishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, says that section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, does apply to matters that arise under the Act by virtue of sub-section (2) of section 29 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, and consequently his application under section 5 for condonation of delay of fifteen days in preferring the revision is mintainable. To this Sri Pratap Reddy demurs.

( 3 ) BEFORE we read what sub-section (2) of section 29 says, ic is necessary to examine section 93 of the Act which prescribes the period of limitation for appeals and revisions. It is in the following terms;"every appeal and every application for revision under this Act shall be filed within sixty days from the date of the order against which the appeal or application is filed and the provisions of the indian Limitation Act, 1908 shall apply for the purposes of the computation of the said period. "

( 4 ) SO this section by itself makes the provisions of the Indian Limitation act of 1908 applicable to appeals and revisions under the Act only for the purpose of computation of the said period. There is quite a large volume of judicial pronounrements of this Court on this aspect. They are: syed Sharfuddin vs. Andrews (I) (1964) i. An. W. R. 171 Girija Bai vs. Jaiwanta (2) (1966) II. An. W. R. 42 Sivakumar vs. Sivaiah (3) A. I. R. 1966 A. P. 14 Ranganayakulu vs Veeraiah (4) (1968) II. An. W. R. 158 and Narsanna vs. Nagappa (5 ). (1974) ii. A. P. L J. 30 (Short Notes of Recent cases) Excepting the decision in Siva. kumar s case (3> A. I. R. 1966 A. P. l 4 ail the others are decisions rendered by learned single Judges. That alone is a decision of a Division Bench. On an examination of all these decisions, we find they have not considered the scope of section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, and its impact on appeals and revision petitions under the Act. All of them, excepting the Bench decision, were obviously considering the only question whether section 5 of the old Limitation act would apply to appeals and revision applications under the Act as per the provisions of the Limitation Act of 1508.

( 5 ) HOWEVER, there is a significant change in the material provisions of the limitation Act of 1908 and that of 1963. Sub-section (2) of section 29 of the 1908 act says: "where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefor by the first schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply, as if such period were prescribed therefor in that schedule, and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law; (a) the provisions contained in section 4, sections 9 to 18 and section 22 shall apply only in so far as and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law: and (b) the remaining provisions of this act shall not apply. "

( 6 ) IT is immediately seen that section 5 of the 1908 Act was not made applicable and in fact expressly excluded from application to suits, appeals or applications under any special or local law. That is why all the previous decisions hold that section 5 had no application to appeals and revision petitions under the act.

( 7 ) NOW in the new Act, sub-section (2) of section 29 makes a very substantial departure. It lays down:"where any special

Click Here to Read the rest of this document